13.07.2015 Views

DRAFT IS-GPS-705A Comment Resolution Matrix - GPS.gov

DRAFT IS-GPS-705A Comment Resolution Matrix - GPS.gov

DRAFT IS-GPS-705A Comment Resolution Matrix - GPS.gov

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>IS</strong>-<strong>GPS</strong>-705 CRMCID Originator/Org. Page/Para Importance <strong>Comment</strong> PO <strong>Resolution</strong> & Concurrence Notesnot know where all the redundancies are, theyshould not be putting forth any proposedinterface changes until they identify where all theredundancies are.79 M DashPage: Gen CPO <strong>Resolution</strong>: RejectGPAPara:<strong>Comment</strong>: There is no document identifying therequirements redundantly repeated in200/705/800 documents.From:Final To: Provide a document of some kindidentifying common/redundant requirements in200/705/800 so that reviewers know what thePOC is intending to manage as common Rationale:Previous comments to remove redundancies byhaving 705 and 800 simply refer to 200 have beenrejected or deferred. As long as the redundanciesexist, the POC and reviewers now have theadditional burden of crosschecking 200/705/800to make sure the redundantly statedrequirements don’t diverge or contradict eachother. Particularly in the case of Army review, theprimary interest is 200. However, since 705 and800 contain information redundant of 200 thatthe Army cares about, all three documents haveto be reviewed. A document identifying theredundant areas would focus the Army review (aswell as other military reviewers) to the sectionsthey really care about.” There was also asimilar/related comment submitted against thebaseline 800 which was deferred.Rationale: Duplicate of the original comment #78made by GPC.Concurrence: Non-concurRationale:GPC rejects PO <strong>Resolution</strong> as referencedduplicate comment has not been answeredat this time, thus this comment remains ineffect. (05/21/09) 08-13-09: this is outsideof SE&I's scope and would requireadditional funding…SE&I stands byrejection.0 GPA Page:Para:CRationale: There was also a similar/relatedcomment submitted against the baseline 800which was deferred.<strong>Comment</strong>:From:PO <strong>Resolution</strong>: RejectRationale:GPC rejects PO <strong>Resolution</strong> as referencedduplicate comment has not been answeredat this time, thus this comment remains ineffect. (05/21/09) 08-13-09: this is outside38

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!